Be Glad Bayh is Gone, Now Progressives Need to Fight!

Lots of news these days... First of all, people should not be so upset that Senator Evan Bayh has decided a reelection bid.  This guy is scum.  Not saying he is a bad man, but he is an obstructionist.  If you have been wondering who to be mad at over health care paralyzation, honestly you ought not blame the Republicans.  Democrats, with a supermajority have not been able to make any of the sweeping reforms that they promised.  That the people elected them to accomplish.  It is because people like Evan Bayh's wife have received millions of dollars from mega-interests like Wellpoint, a giant health insurance company.  These interests certainly expect something in return (i.e. no comprehensive health reform!).  Evan Bayh is not a "centrist" Democrat, he is a corporatist, plain and simple.  Glad to be rid of him.

The downside to his decision, however, could be that someone worse will win the seat.  This is within the realm of possibility, but hopefully Indiana progressives can rally behind a strong candidate.  Of course, the weakness of the progressive movement is a serious problem.  I can only resort to books and articles to recall a time when progressives actually cared enough to act in the streets.  Or at least to have a regular conversation on political matters.  To be informed.  Nowadays, these behaviors are considered taboo.  I know because I experience it on a regular basis.  Americans, particularly kids, are severely distracted by technology and pop culture.  Dangerously so.  We are in the 7th and 9th year of two serious wars, and who could give a damn?  During the Vietnam War college student protesters were shot and teargassed for their opposition.  Sure, we elected Obama, but if there is no substance behind the vote, then where is the change?  If there is no spirit to fight for the most important of causes, to hold Obama and Congress to the fire for health care, climate change, and financial reforms then who would expect them to happen?  Congress is terribly corrupt, so it will take a lot of pushing to get these things done.

The push is stronger than in the Bush years, but still not enough to make critical changes for our society's sake.  We need to wake up.

Wall Street Reform (or lack thereof) Update

Obama takin on Wall Street?
Part 1:

Part 2:

Obama Myth: The Revised Blueprint for Change

When it became clear that Barack Obama would win the presidency, I was watching an appearance by Ralph Nader who was explaining what he believed would happen early on in the first term. He predicted that the supporters would say: "Give him a chance." There is much to be changed, and it will take time. The first hundred days go by... not a whole lot of change, but hey, he's workin on it... right?

Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)

For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":

1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it

2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it

3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check

4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check

5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style

6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy

7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie

8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba

Got any more? Let's hear!

[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger.  Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem.  President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]

How Obama Could Fail

I know it's early in the term, but I want to get these ideas out there before they disappear. And maybe this will be a worthy assessment in the long-run.

As the title indicates, I believe there is a very high possibility that President Obama will not be able to accomplish his vision in the next 4 years or 8. His full vision has yet to be disclosed in its entirety, but to bring about the change I and many others believe in will take a lot of political power that I'm not so sure Obama will have for long.

You see, there is this thing called the "political establishment"-- an institution or set of institutions that have evolved over the years into the system that currently exists--which makes it really difficult to enact fundamental change (that is, change in the system itself). Congress, the Executive, and the courts are all a part of this establishment, and they have many rules--accumulated since the founding-- that determine HOW business is done. If you want to act effectively in this system, you must play by the rules.

What I am suggesting is that Barack Obama will be forced to play the game of Washington in order to get things done... and in the process he will discover that the establishment is far more powerful than any president-- and the hopeful masses will become tomorrow's cynics because the promises will fade to mere whispers. It is the nature of the beast.

And I've avoided an entire institution--perhaps the most crucial one of all-- that is, the media. As Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen suggest on Bill Moyers Journal (PBS), the mainstream media will protect the establishment of Washington, D.C. because they are a PART OF the establishment of Washington. Media commentators simply do not think to question the actual system of which they are so immersed.

If our basic institutions of democracy are in fact broken, and the media continues to insulate it from fundamental criticism, how exactly is the new president supposed to upset the system and restore government to the people?

I guess it all depends on how Obama can reconnect people with what is really going on... in a truly interactive and revolutionary way... via the internet. The question is: how do we utilize this remarkable tool in a way that changes the way people think about and learn about government? And affect government?

Cracking Down on White House Lobbying... Your thoughts?

As I work on a piece on the Israel/Palestine conflict (researching and whatnot), I'd like to hear your input on President Obama's executive order, which cracks down on the lobbying in the White House. Check out the blog, and let us know what you think. Feel free to reply to the comments of others, and have some fun.

Obama's Ethics Policy Upsets Would-be Staffers

by Sam Stein

The decision by Barack Obama to restrict lobbyists from working on the same subject in his administration for two years was greeted with nearly unanimous acclaim among the pundits in Washington D.C. If there is one thing that unites congressmen and good-government groups it is support -- at least rhetorical support -- for limiting special interests.

But not everyone was overcome with joy over the Executive Order. For Democratic operatives who have the word "lobbyist" on their resume, Obama's move was a dagger to their dreams of administration jobs.

"All Appointees Entering Government," the new rule reads, "will not for a period of 2 years from the date of [their] appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to [their] former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts."

The issue, ironically, may not matter as much for the most senior of prospective administration officials. Obama maintains the right to skirt the restrictions. For instance, his deputy defense secretary will be William Lynn, who has previously served as a representative for the defense contractor Raytheon. Rather, the individuals squeezed most tightly by the restrictions could end up being those lower on the political totem pole.

"Today, I received the news that I won't be working for an Obama administration," said a Democratic friend of mine, who was part of a briefing team for the president's transition efforts but happens to be a registered lobbyist.

By instituting the most transparent and open ethics policy of any presidential administration, Obama was bound to step on some toes. And he may have disadvantaged himself in certain ways. A high-ranking party operative told the Huffington Post back in December that he disagreed somewhat with the transition team's decision to restrict lobbyists from working on their areas of focus. He'd rather have the experts on staff.

"I understand not having a lobbyist for the NRA working for Obama," the went. "But I want someone who has spent their careers lobbying for stronger gun control laws formulating gun policy in the next White House."

For good government groups, this is a faulty hypothetical. The administration not only needed to make a clean break from special interests, they argue, but can easily fill its ranks with qualified individuals from outside the beltway.

"I think that stance assumes that lobbyists are the only free thinkers and knowledgeable thinkers in Washington that can help the government run better," said Scott Amey of the non-partisan public interest group, the Project On Government Oversight. "The ethics pledge that President Obama put out yesterday was only limiting lobbyists. And the one thing you have to remember is that lobbyists are representing clients that have financial interests at stake ... The Obama team has the waiver provision in there. If it determines that it is in the public interest, a lobbyist can still come and work for the administration. And there are certain times when those waivers may be more appropriate and reasonable than other cases."

POGO, in the end, did not think that such an exception should apply to Lynn, who has become the current face of Obama hypocrisy for the Republican National Committee.

Other watchdogs agreed.

"It appears to be a black-and-white case. I am unaware of what makes it so gray in the mind of President Obama," a former congressional budget staffer now with the Center for Defense Information told ABC News. "It certainly does not bode well for his effectiveness in the job," added Lawrence Korb, a military expert with the Center for American Progress.

But Gibbs justified the move in during Thursday's presser, making sure to reaffirm that the President is, at this point, setting a gold standard for White House ethics policy.

"We have experts who have studied the issue of transparency and ethics who have applauded the steps that the president took yesterday," he said, during his first press briefing. "That exceeds what any administration has previously done in this country. That's what the president pledged during the campaign and that is exactly what he did yesterday in signing these executive orders."

"Any standard is not perfect," he added. "A waiver process that allows people to serve their country is necessary."

A Huffington Post

Will The Madoff Debacle Finally End The "Who Could Have Known?" Era?

by Arianna Huffington

See if this sounds familiar:

An ambitious and risky undertaking carried out with hubris, and featuring the weeding out of anyone who raises alarm bells, little-to-no transparency, an oversight system in which no central authority is accountable, and the deliberate manufacturing of ambiguity and complexity so that if -- when -- it all falls to pieces, the excuse "who could have known?" can be used....

Is it Iraq? Fannie Mae? Citigroup? Bernie Madoff?

The correct answer is: all of the above.

When you look at the elements that were crucial to the creation of each of these debacles, it's amazing how much in common they all have. And not just in how they began but in how they ended: with those responsible being amazed at what happened, because...who could have known? Well, to paraphrase James Inhofe, I'm amazed at the amazement.

In fact, when historians look for a name that sums up the Bush II years, they could do worse than calling them The "Who Could Have Known?" Era.

Each of the disasters listed above was entirely predictable. And, indeed, was predicted. But those who rang the alarm bells were aggressively ignored, which is why it's important that we not let those responsible get away with the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse.

Let's start with Iraq -- specifically the reconstruction of Iraq. This weekend the New York Times got its hands on the unpublished 513-page federal history of the reconstruction. It's not pretty. As the Times puts it: it was "an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure." As a result, almost six years and $117 billion later, many essential services are only now reaching pre-war levels.

The report quotes Colin Powell on how the Pentagon, to cover up its failures, "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces [that had reached readiness] -- the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.' "

Hmm, making up numbers to realize a short-term gain, but which end up making the inevitable long-term reckoning much worse? Sounds a lot like what was happening at Citigroup at around the same time.

In late 2002, Charles Prince was put in charge of the company's corporate and investment bank. The banking giant was already knee deep in toxic paper and aggressively looking the other way.

He was so successful at averting his eyes that when, five years later, as Wall Street began to feel the initial shocks of the mortgage meltdown, he was told that the bank owned $43 billion in mortgage-related assets -- it was the first he'd heard of it. Isn't that something he should have known? Or did he prefer not knowing?

Prince had plenty of help ignoring the obvious, particularly from Robert Rubin. According to a former Citigroup executive quoted in the long New York Times analysis of Citi's downfall, despite ascending to the top of the Citi food chain, Prince "didn't know a C.D.O. from a grocery list, so he looked for someone for advice and support. That person was Rubin."

When it all came tumbling down, both Rubin and Prince portrayed themselves as helpless victims of circumstance, because...Who Could Have Known?

"I've thought a lot about that," Rubin said when asked if he made mistakes at Citigroup. "I honestly don't know. In hindsight, there are a lot of things we'd do differently. But in the context of the facts as I knew them and my role, I'm inclined to think probably not."

What he means, of course, is the facts as he chose to know them.

Prince's head is even higher in the clouds: "Anything," he said, "based on human endeavor and certainly any business that involves risk-taking, you're going to have problems from time to time."

Sounds like he's reading from the same damage control playbook as former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. According to Raines, he can't be blamed for what happened at Fannie Mae because mortgage stuff is so, well, complicated. In fact, he can't even understand his own mortgage: "I know I can't and I've tried," Raines told a House committee last week. "To this day, I don't know what it said... It's impossible for the average person to understand" mortgage terms such as negative amortization. In other words, Who Could Have Known?

Committee chair Henry Waxman wasn't buying it: "These documents make clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew what they were doing. Their own risk managers raised warning after warning about the dangers of investing heavily in the subprime and alternative mortgage markets."

Ignoring warning after warning is an essential element of the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse, as are rewriting history and shamelessly disregarding the foresight shown by those who sounded the alarm bells.

We're seeing the same ingredients in the Madoff affair. "We have worked with Madoff for nearly 20 years," said Jeffrey Tucker, a former federal regulator and the head of an investment firm facing losses of $7.5 billion. "We had no indication that we...were the victims of such a highly sophisticated, massive fraudulent scheme." It's a sentiment echoed by Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission: "I've known [Madoff] for nearly 35 years, and I'm absolutely astonished."

Who Could Have Known?

Well, Harry Markopoulos, for one. In 1999, after researching Madoff's methods, Markopolos wrote a letter to the SEC saying, "Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi Scheme." He pursued his claims with the feds for the next nine years, with little result.

Jim Vos, another investment adviser who had examined Madoff's firm, says: "There's no smoking gun, but if you added it all up you wonder why people either did not get it or chose to ignore the red flags."

The answer comes from Vos's cohort Jake Walthour Jr., who told HuffPost blogger Vicky Ward: "In a bull market no one bothers to ask how the returns are met, they just like the returns."

Hasn't the "Who Could Have Known?" excuse been exposed as a sham enough times to render it obsolete?

Apparently not. Here come the Bush Legacy Project's revisionists expecting us to believe that everyone thought Saddam had WMD -- even though many were on record saying he didn't.

In the wake of 9/11, Condi Rice assured us nobody "could have predicted" that someone "would try to use an airplane as a missile." Except, of course, the government report that in 1999 said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House."

After Katrina, the White House read from the "Who Could Have Known?" hymnal: No one could have predicted that the storm would be a Category 5, and that this could result in the levees being breached. We now know, of course, that plenty of people knew that the levees could be breached and said so before the storm hit.

Then there is Alan Greenspan, who, looking back in October of this year on the makings of the financial crisis he helped create (I mean, that just happened to come out of nowhere) delivered this "Who Could Have Known?" classic: "If all those extraordinarily capable people were unable to foresee the development of this critical problem...we have to ask ourselves: Why is that? And the answer is that we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance."

The only problem is, many people did see events that far in advance.

Unlike Greenspan, I don't believe the problem is that we are "not smart enough as people." As we've seen time after time, smart enough people are all too willing to ignore facts they don't like. Or, even worse, they construct oversight systems designed to be ineffective -- and unable to provide to those in power information they don't really want to know.

Much has been made of the smartness of Obama's new team. But I'm hoping that their defining characteristic won't be their IQs but their willingness to confront reality and take responsibility for their decisions.

It's time to say goodbye to the "Who Could Have Known?" era. It's time to know things again. And to know that you know them.

The Truth in Bulworth's Rhymes

Bulworth, the 1998 film directed by and starring the great Warren Beatty, tells the story of the last days of campaigning for incumbent Senator Jay Billington Bulworth--a liberal Democrat of California. The Senator, apparently depressed, orders a hit on his own life after arranging for a hefty life insurance policy to support his family. In his final appearances as Senator, Bulworth embarks on a crusade of truth--abandoning the trust of his wealthy contributors, Hollywood moguls, and shady insurance lobbyists by speaking of the game that has been played upon the American people.

Bulworth seems on a spiral of madness as he adopts "ghetto" slang, dress and rhythm to the utter bewilderment of his top campaign advisors and a C-SPAN crew. But in the course of his sensational journey, the Senator finds a renewed calling for service from a wise hobo who calls out: "Bulworth, don't be a ghost, you got to be a spirit!" And so he does, with a revamped campaign strategy, which consists of rapping the truth of the system and tearing down the myth of "honest" media during a televised debate. Drawing more and more public fascination, the incumbent raps during his primetime interview:

The rich is getting richer and richer and richer while the middle class is getting more poor/ Making billions and billions and billions of bucks/ well my friend if you weren't already rich at the start well that situation just sucks/cause the richest mother fucker in five of us is getting ninety fuckin eight percent of it/ and every other motherfucker in the world is left to wonder where the fuck we went with it/ Obscenity?/ I'm a Senator/ I gotta raise $10,000 a day every day I'm in Washington/ I ain't getting it in South Central/ I'm gettin it in Beverly Hills/ So I'm votin' for them in the Senate the way they want me too...

It's funny and revelatory, but where the film really shines is in Bulworth's discovery of the truth of the African American condition-- specifically from a drug boss (played by Don Cheadle) who recruits the neighborhood kids to do the hustling because it's the only way to make it in a world where politicians cut the funding to the jobs programs and education. Explaining the reality to Bulworth, Cheadle's character lays it straight: "How a young man gonna take care of his financial responsibilities workin' at motherfuckin' Burger King? He ain't. He ain't, and please don't even start with the school shit. There ain't no education goin' on up in that motherfucker."

And so the rogue politician finds new life in breaking free from the bondage of the corporate establishment--waging an all out crusade against the cancerous power that continues to strangle America the Beautiful. Within the fantastical rhymes of Senator Jay Bulworth lies the truth of the state of this union: that we have been deceived by the great nexus of misinformation into believing that the noble and virtuous will rise for our cause, and that this civilization is better than the great realities that our universe might have us believe in. Perhaps this is excessively cynical, but we must ask ourselves if it is indeed? Have our leaders not won time and time again upon the same promises of change and a better day? Do intelligence and extraordinary talent make the true difference, or does fundamental change arise from a rare kind of passionate courageousness?

Can a leader with the guts and vision rise to a level of true influence? ...Has he already?



Would they let him get away with it?

Change.gov: Your Administration?

I know that I just posted something new, but something ELSE has just come up that ties in very nicely to what I was saying!

My post-election theme is grassroots organization and how important it is that we form a progressive coalition for true change.  Well, there is already a massive coalition in place--that being the Barack Obama campaign.  What I have just seen is change.gov-- a President-elect Obama site dedicated to citizen involvement and transparency on the transition.  This is extremely promising.

Here are some of the site's objectives:

• up-to-the-minute updates and information about all aspects of the transition
  
• offers an opportunity to be heard about the challenges our country faces and your ideas for tackling them
  
• people united around a common purpose can achieve great things
  
• innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs
  
• The story of bringing this country together as a healed and united nation will be led by President-Elect Obama, but written by you

The potential this has to truly change the face of democracy is staggering... I'm very excited.  We must keep a careful eye on this form of communication, and see how it develops.  Could this be the end of government secrecy?  Will this be the medium for progressives to push our vital agendas?  Will this be a way for the people to overpower the lobbyists and corporate power-hold on government?  Is this the next revolutionary step to create our perfect union?

We shall see.  The SkyeWire is on the case.

Unity, Organization, HOPE

Two months ago, Ron Paul appeared alongside Ralph Nader on CNN to discuss their plans for a third party/independent presidential debate.  The debate is irrelevant at this point, but I want to convey the united message that the two shared as a continuation of the message from my last post.

They agreed that immediate action must be taken on the following issues:

A.) Foreign Policy

-We do not want the empire! 

-We cannot afford the empire!

-No more unjust wars!

-Cut the outrageous military budget!

-The President cannot declare war without congressional approval (see Constitution)!

-Bring our military home!

B.) Civil Rights

-Abolish the Patriot Act!

-No more torture!

-Appeal FISA!

C.) Federal Deficit ($56 trillion)

-Stop using the deficit for reckless government adventurism!

-Control the spending!

D.) Reform or Abolish the Federal Reserve

-It is funded and controlled by the banks!

-Totally out of control!

So these are 4 issues that are critical to the survival of our country, and activists on all sides need to come together to push them into the Obama agenda.  Somehow the millions of activists around the country MUST come together for common cause.  People need to be thinking about this and leaders must begin establishing the framework for grassroots organization.  The Congress is only 535 people... they have lives and personalities just like you and me... they can be persuaded. Imagine the possibilities.  

But this week we rest to admire the remarkable history that has been made.  By electing a man whose ancestors we once called "slave," we have proven once again that the American Dream is real.  The age of cynicism and fear has come to an end, and the world can once again look to the United States as a beacon of hope and leadership.  We must remember that in no other place in the world could this have happened.  It is like the French electing a citizen of Algerian descent to their highest office!  Ce n'est pas possible!

Coming of age during perhaps the most cynical period of American history prevented me from recognizing why our country truly is special.  It is because of this nation's ability to change that gives me newfound hope.  Today let the world know that the United States can be better, and I believe will.  

And to the Americans who have been disenchanted by our nation's failures and betrayals: I ask you to believe once more in the Dream that is our legacy, and in the government that we cherish so deeply.  Do not let it fail.

Much work is ahead of us, but it can be done.

Cynicism for Obamanation

The Obama fervor is fairly strong here on campus, so I thought I should inject a little realism into the conversation by posting the following in our school paper (you may recognize the quote):

Former New York Times reporter recently wrote this forward thinking and realistic assessment of our current political predicament:

"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."

I am voting for Barack Obama, but I know that I should be voting for Nader. I suppose it is the fluffy hope that Obama speaks of in his carefully crafted speeches... the idea that Obama could be a third party in disguise. If the fact that Nader is on 45 state ballots and was STILL restricted from the debates does not set off red flags in your mind, you must be truly blinded. But if there is not radical reform of our government, then this country is going to become a lot more pathetic... maybe even dangerous. The corruption has permeated all aspects of the legislative, executive and judicial. The empire is out of control.

Eventually there will be a call to arms to end the corporatocracy and dismantle the military industrial complex (look it up)... to restore the integrity of the Republic. The people forgot Vietnam and did not feel the Iraq War, but they will feel the next one, and when they start to suffer, they will cry out for another Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. Till then and beyond we must take after the Founding Fathers and be skeptical of those who rule, and take action when they become incompetent.

Later today I'll be seeing Joe Biden speak in Newark, OH... hopefully I'll get to ask him a good question.  Will report later.